A Dialogue on Institutions
In: SpringerBriefs in Philosophy
22 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: SpringerBriefs in Philosophy
In: Philosophy of the social sciences: an international journal = Philosophie des sciences sociales, Band 51, Heft 3, S. 243-265
ISSN: 1552-7441
Scientific progress has many facets and can be conceptualized in different ways, for example in terms of problem-solving, of truthlikeness or of growth of knowledge. The main claim of the paper is that the most important prerequisite of scientific progress is the institutionalization of competition and criticism. An institutional framework appropriately channeling competition and criticism is the crucial factor determining the direction and rate of scientific progress, independently on how one might wish to conceptualize scientific progress itself. The main intention is to narrow the divide between traditional philosophy of science and the sociological, economic and political view of science that emphasizes the private interests motivating scientists and the subsequent contingent nature of the enterprise. The aim is to show that although science is a social enterprise taking place in historical time and thus is of a contingent nature, it can and in fact does lead to genuine scientific progress—contrary to the claims of certain sociologists of science and other relativists who standardly stress its social nature, but deny its progressive character. I will first deal with the factual issue by way of introducing the main concepts and mechanisms of modern institutional theory and by applying them to the analysis of the cultural phenomenon that we call modern science. I will then turn to the normative issue: what is the appropriate content of the institutional framework, for scientific progress to emerge and be sustained at which level should it be set and by whom? Addressing this problematic is equivalent to conducting a constitutional debate leading to a Constitution of Science.
In: Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Forthcoming
SSRN
In: European Journal of Philosophy, Forthcoming
SSRN
In: Philosophy of the social sciences: an international journal = Philosophie des sciences sociales, Band 49, Heft 4, S. 307-322
ISSN: 1552-7441
In: Synthese: an international journal for epistemology, methodology and philosophy of science, Band 196, Heft 3, S. 775-793
ISSN: 1573-0964
In: International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, 2015, vol. 21, pp. 302-307
SSRN
In: European Journal of Law and Economics, Band 22, Heft 3
SSRN
In: Journal of institutional and theoretical economics: JITE, Band 170, Heft 1, S. 96
ISSN: 1614-0559
In: Metascience: an international review journal for the history, philosophy and social studies of science, Band 22, Heft 1, S. 105-110
ISSN: 1467-9981
In: Analyse & Kritik: journal of philosophy and social theory, Band 34, Heft 1, S. 21-38
ISSN: 2365-9858
Abstract
In this dialogue the position of Pragmatic Naturalism as defended in Philip Kitcher's The Ethical Project is presented and criticized. The approach is developed dialectically by the two interlocutors and a series of critical points are debated. The dialogical form is intended to honor the main objective in The Ethical Project: to establish an ongoing conversation on ways to improve moral conceptions and processes, which grow naturally out of the very conditions of human life.
SSRN
In: Philosophy of the social sciences: an international journal = Philosophie des sciences sociales, Band 42, Heft 2, S. 224-238
ISSN: 1552-7441
There is a long tradition in philosophy and the social sciences that emphasizes the meaningfulness of human action. This tradition doubts or even negates the possibility of causal explanations of human action precisely on the basis that human actions have meaning. This article provides an argument in favor of methodological naturalism in the social sciences. It grants the main argument of the Interpretivists, that is, that human actions are meaningful, but it shows how a transformation of a "nexus of meaning" into a "causal nexus" can take place, proposing the "successful transformation argument."
SSRN
Working paper